It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whistleblower Reveals

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Its the title of the story from the source as yourself and the moron who starred your reply obviously missed.

[edit on 6/5/2010 by mikelee]




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Its the title of the story from the source as yourself and the moron who starred your reply obviously missed.

[edit on 6/5/2010 by mikelee]


star and a flag for your thread.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Just to clarify, for weedwhacker and 767doctor...

Would it be possible to do what the planes on 9/11 did by remote control, just not viably do a "e-hijacking" of a plane remotely?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Just to clarify, for weedwhacker and 767doctor...

Would it be possible to do what the planes on 9/11 did by remote control, just not viably do a "e-hijacking" of a plane remotely?


That I would basically agree with, yes. However, there will be other technical issues like latency, GPS/inertial accuracy, especially when a precise position fix is necessary, ie when the target is barely wider than the wingspan of the aircraft.

Then you still have to explain what happened to the four 9/11 flights; they took off and didn't land and the occupants were never heard from again. The other thing is the fact that all other 757's and 767's ever built are accounted for. The conspiracy would have to run pretty deep to involve Boeing building 4 jets "off the books".

[edit on 6-6-2010 by 767doctor]

eta: grr like 90% of my post got nuked by the preview post feature wtf. If you'd like me to expound on the above, I'll be glad to....again.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


I have a video I believe from 1981, I'm sure its easily available on youtube. But I believe its NASA crashing a plane to test a type of fuel additive for fire suppression. I'm not sure of the type of craft.

But I believe it was taken off, flown and crashed all by remote control.

I don't know the type of craft its been awhile since I've watched the clip, I also don't know of any or what kind of modifications might have been made to the plane.

You familiar at all with what I'm referring to?

Also, with GPS capabilities of 2001 would my reference in my other post be more plausible or still on the same plane (no pun intended)?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by 767doctor
 


I have a video I believe from 1981, I'm sure its easily available on youtube. But I believe its NASA crashing a plane to test a type of fuel additive for fire suppression. I'm not sure of the type of craft.

But I believe it was taken off, flown and crashed all by remote control.

I don't know the type of craft its been awhile since I've watched the clip, I also don't know of any or what kind of modifications might have been made to the plane.

You familiar at all with what I'm referring to?

Also, with GPS capabilities of 2001 would my reference in my other post be more plausible or still on the same plane (no pun intended)?


Yes, I've seen this test and it indeed was remote controlled for the duration of the flight. I suppose you could outfit 2 757's and 2 767's with the needed modifications with the sole purpose of crashing them. GPS guidance is dicey because its not accurate to a few meters 100% of the time, and inertial guidance is less accurate. You'd still have latency issues between the transmitted command, the aircraft response, and response feedback to the controller. Ever notice when news crews are interviewing guests/reporters by satellite and there is a pause between transmissions? That's latency in a nutshell.

It sounds easy on paper, but it gets complicated at nearly 600 mph. The Boeing 720 example you allude to was at landing speeds and it still completely missed the target.

"It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level and exactly on the centerline during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage
to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway. The Boeing 720 landed askew and
caused a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage.

It was not exactly the impact that was hoped for, but research from the CID program yielded new data on impact survivability which helped establish new FAA rules regarding fire prevention and retardant materials. Although proponents argued that AMK prevented a hotter, more catastrophic fire during the CID, FAA requirements for the additive were put on the back burner."


Link to the 720 RC crash



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Was the video perhaps the one that had cameras mounted in it and fake passengers to test fuel cells, bladders, retardant, suppression in fires on board or something like that



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
This one demonstrates remote controlled flight WAAAY before 911.





posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
ummm, hey....the antnnas for a remote control are larger and sometimes painted orange and can be seen on the undersid.....oh, gotta go....



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 


???? What, a 'drive-by' posting, with NO evidence to back it up?


...the antnnas(sic) for a remote control are larger and sometimes painted orange and can be seen on the undersid(sic)...


Really? Photos, please. Back up this claim, or retract it.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
767doctor,

your possible procedures to overcome an unwanted remote control overtaking of the aircraft is fully based on well instructed, very experienced, certified pilots.

In these cases however, the official line has been for years that the hijackers were only learning at their flight schools how to fly to their target, when already in the air.
No take-off and landing procedures involved in that task. Let it be, any of the highly sophisticated procedures you offered us.

And it could be that the hijackers were all patsies, inspired by some agency acting as Al Qaida, who told them to fly the planes into their targets.
These unknowns however probably never took the risk that these patsies would miss their targets, which were carefully chosen for maximum effect on the masses, to trump up the dormant patriotic feelings to Pearl Harbor levels again.

When you had read about the Venice Flying Circus flight school , where the girlfriend of Atta was interviewed and told that he and his friends were drinking liquor heavily and visited sex clubs, Las Vegas and basically acted as playboys, you would see a picture unfold of people who did not seem too hell-bound to end their life as fundamental Muslims dying for a just cause.
Their behavior in the local pubs in Venice Florida was described the same way by the waitresses and the barmen of the places they frequented.

Thus it seems not so far fetched to suppose a remote control system to have been implemented, to stay on the safe side.

Edit : Latency would have been of no interest, when one of the two Doomsday planes in the air above Washington and one possibly visible in a video above New York, were involved in such a high treasonous deed.

[edit on 6/6/10 by LaBTop]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Yes.

That WAS an R/C event, for the express purpose (as already described by 767Doctor). It was in 1984 (not 1981, as was earlier suggested).

I have actually used this same event, in some of my posts.

To illustrate just how DIFFICULT it is!!! To control, via R/C. Especially as the airspeeds get faster, and faster.

Although the airspeeds in this case (the B720) were low, this is also the case in today's modern UAVs. ALL of them fly quite slowly, because of the requirement for human reaction time (the human "pilots" sitting on the ground, operating remotely).

What is lacking, for a remote pilot, is the FEEL, and other sensory cues that pilots utilize in 'normal' flying. Besides the inner ear (which can fool us) there are the sensations of weight, acceleration, sideways movement (yaw)...AND the SOUNDS. Most people don't realize how many cues are derived from sound, for pilots. There is, back to talking about weight and 'FEEL', the tactile interaction between the controls, their 'feel', and the airplane response.

I'm sure most people can appreciate this, just by thinking about your experience driving. AND, if you've ever played with an R/C toy of any kind.


NOW...to the 9/11 events. There is no doubt as to the hijackings' occurence. There is NO question (already shown perfectly well by 767Doctor) that any sort of involuntary "take-over" is impossible, in terms of the real airline pilots. THEY know very well how to overcome any 'obstacles' like that. (Even IF it were contemplated as being put into fruition).

That leaves the "R/C" lovers to counter, "But, the Arabs were patsies! THEY were just along for the ride, AFTER they took over, and had no control thereafter!".
~~~~~~~

I see my 'prophecy' has come to pass...whilst composing this missive:


Originally posted by LaBTop
And it could be that the hijackers were all patsies, inspired by some agency acting as Al Qaida, who told them to fly the planes into their targets.

~~~~~~~

This claim is demonstrably wrong, and it is shown to be wrong in the NTSB history of the DFDR recorders' information. The controls IN THE COCKPIT were physically manipulated, after the take-overs. (We have only the AAL 77 and UAL 93 data that survived, but the inference can be applied to the other two).

By 'controls', I don't mean just the control wheel, and throttles...but the radio tuning knobs (the transponder too, of course), the Mode Control Panel inputs (to program and control/operate the AutoPilot, when it was engaged) AND...the fact that the A/P was intentionally disconected, then re-connected multiple times.

This shows without doubt the fallacy of the "R/C" claims.


~~~~~
OK...I wanted to bring up the B-720 from 1984, again, to analyze that experiment. (Trying to find online documentation, will keep digging). I've read a lot about it, because it was so interesting. BUT, most of the stories just aren't out on the Web. (ONE likely place would be archived copies of Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine).


I don't know HOW they got the gear to retract, after takeoff....knowing what I know about the gear handle design, and the system design. But, either a remotely operated relay could trigger the physical switch...OR, they just put the gear handle to the 'UP' position, on the ground, and once the Ground-Sensing circuits (built into the oleo function of the landing gear struts...when compressed, on the ground, the switches are 'open') recognized the airborne condition of the airplane, the gear retract valves would have sequenced to UP....

Other than that, they just left the slat/flap settings alone...same setting for takeoff as was used for the 'approach'....as they wished to simulate a 'CFIT' accident, typically occuring with the gear up, while maneuvering with 'approach' flap settings....(typically 15 degrees, in the Boeings. Same, 15 degrees, is also suitable for takeoff).

The 'pilot' ran into difficulty, near the end, due to a phenomenon that the B-707/720 series was well known for: It's called 'Dutch Roll' tendency.

Pilot-induced, usually...it can progress if not dealt with properly...and THAT requires a good 'FEEL', using all of your senses, as mentioned in the beginning.








[edit on 6 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
It wouldn't suprise me if they had remote devices in place around 9/11,who ever was controlling it must have been pretty good or the flight was already programmed in,just press go.
if you were a pilot would you throw your plane into the building if told to or would you risk doing somthing about it,makes remote control seem more likely to me



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by rhynouk
 


Would you please take some time, and read this thread? Instead of just the headline?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I suppose "they" took over only at the last seconds, to not alarm the patsies too early. That would be the most secure and safe modus operandi.

In New York, only the second impact showed something like that, the second plane performed quite an interesting spiral down hit at the South Tower.

Flight 93 could also have been taken over in the few minutes which are left out of the cockpit recordings.

Flight 77 could have been taken over also in the last seconds.
Patsies could have been ordered to fly low over the Pentagon.
Just a little dip of the stick..... in all cases.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Sure....one can speculate all one wnats, until the cows come home!!!

But, 'speculations' aside, the facts are what matter.


I suppose "they" took over only at the last seconds, to not alarm the patsies too early.


I covered that, up above. The hijackers' activities are well documented, in the AAL 77 and UAL 93 DFDR. THEY (the hijackers) turned the airplanes, and selected the areas to fly towards (the DC area, in this case. Would have been the NYC area for AA 11 and UAL 175, obviously).



In New York.... the second plane performed quite an interesting spiral down hit at the South Tower.


That's a new one! Don't recall any "spiral" invovling UAL 175!!


Flight 93 could also have been taken over in the few minutes which are left out of the cockpit recordings.


More unsubstantiated speculation? Show these "missing" few minutes. Where is the 'gap'?



Flight 77 could have been taken over also in the last seconds.
Patsies could have been ordered to fly low over the Pentagon.
Just a little dip of the stick..... in all cases.


Again...facts. Those pesky facts get in the way of these fantasies, and the speculation. Speculations that are, BTW, pulled out of thin air.....



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


My question was just if what occured on 9/11 would be possible with a remote controlled aircraft. Basically just the flight, manuevers and the crashes.

I'm not really trying to get into rather it was an e hijacking, or if the terrorists were patsies, or if raytheon was behind it all.

Just leaving all other arguments to the side, would it be possible for a remote controlled 747 to do what was done on 9/11?

Could a remote 747 take off, fly the supposed flight plans from 9/11 and then crash at their respective locations?

Could a remote aircraft "injected" or "swapped" mid air ala Operation Northwoods fly the supposed flight plans and then crash at their respective locations?

As far as drones are concerned, you mention atleast on a commercial airliner that some things are just impossible to do remotely, landing gear, flaps, anything you have to physically move a knob or lever for...

Are you familiar with how this is implemented on a drone? I mean it surely has to be able to be remotely controlled, or its a predetermined setting that is changed on the ground pre flight based on flight conditions.

I'm really just wondering if it is at all possible to what was done on 9/11 by remote controlled aircraft. I've kinda seen this argument before, but noone really has touched on the actual plausiblity of it, and instead says that well the pilots would have had to....or this would have had too....

My question I guess is just technological, and assuming all other "requirements" to be true, would it be technologically possible for this to happen?

From what I can garner from your previous post, you are saying most likely not?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


In the sense of "possible", then given sufficient engineering, design and retro-fitting installation?


Just leaving all other arguments to the side, would it be possible for a remote controlled 747 to do what was done on 9/11?

Could a remote 747 take off, fly the supposed flight plans from 9/11 and then crash at their respective locations?


That gets into multi-part question territory. Let's be clear: "Remote Control" specifically invokes the concept that someone is actively involved with the controlling aspects. (This is to differentiate it from "Autonomous" control, which is another concept entirely, YET attempted to be postulated by CTers).

The "possible" cannot be completely discounted, of course. It is the "plausible" that must be considered. FOUR instances, as well....yet, NO ONE has ANY information, nor hints, at just HOW this was all accomplished, where, when, and by who. Nearly nine years on, now...

ALSO, the histories of the four airplanes involved? No one has ever come forth with evidence to show those airplanes down for the length of time it would have taken for such a "retro-fit installation" to be accomplished.

These are in the area of pure speculation, and fantasy.

(You mis-typed '747', but I knew that and from now on am thinking of the B-757/767 series).

This question also falls into the 'speculative' box, and has no supporting evidence:


Could a remote aircraft "injected" or "swapped" mid air ala Operation Northwoods...


Part one: No, because there are no airplanes unaccounted for.

Part two:


...fly the supposed flight plans and then crash at their respective locations?


Seems, by hte intent here, back to suggesting some sort of autonomous flight...NO, not possible, not to the accuracy shown, and not for other reasons, either.



... you mention at least on a commercial airliner that some things are just impossible to do remotely, landing gear, flaps, anything you have to physically move a knob or lever for...


'impossible' covers a lot more ground...in a world of micro switches, and levers...well, something COULD be designed to activate micro switches, and move them. A switch is just something to allow electricity to flow (or not) through a circuit, after all. However, it would surely add complexity, depending on how many functions normally manually operated you wished to convert to R/C.


Are you familiar with how this is implemented on a drone?


Only in passing, from what I can read in trade magazines, or on the Web...everything that's unclassified. There are many, many different examples of UAVs today....and the field is getting crowded. Would be interesting to research just HOW MANY NEW designs have arisen, since 2001.

In any event, UAVs are designed from the ground up ( pun
)
as R/C vehicles. Compared to the technical difficulties imposed on trying to alter a stock Boeing.

All public info on 'drones' is out there, and available for everyone to peruse:

en.wikipedia.org...

I notice that retractable landing gear aren't normally included, on all designs, and that would make sense, depending on the intended role of each machine. Simplifies their design, lessens the weight, etc. (Gear retraction, and the added complexity and weight, would be deemed necessary if speed were a factor in the mission demands).


I didn't repeat more from your post, since the question is essentially the same. It just doesn't pass the 'smell' test, to imagine SUCH a large endeavor (FOUR normal passenger airliners) being 're-done' in such a way (and the technical challenges are steep) without anyone being aware, and with no one noticing the missing time, in the airplanes' histories, that would be required.

Such a 'plan' would involve many hundreds of man hours, AND all of these 'new' and added components?? Not exactly off-the-shelf equipment, either. WHO built them? IF you wish to assume a 'government' involvement...well, everyone knows that the government has to contract out to manufacturers, they do all the time.

The pool of people that would have to have been involved is tremendously large.....



[edit on 6 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

I covered that, up above. The hijackers' activities are well documented, in the AAL 77 and UAL 93 DFDR. THEY (the hijackers) turned the airplanes, and selected the areas to fly towards (the DC area, in this case. Would have been the NYC area for AA 11 and UAL 175, obviously).


There's an Australian (Warren?) who uncovered a few last unknown data seconds from the AAL 77 data given by the NTSB. You know very well.
And this forum is full of PfT posts which deal with that and the far too high position in the last seconds of Flight 77. Where you participated in all of them.
And then we have the North of CITCO EYE witnesses.
And I certainly believe them, and not your lying, deceiving government.

UAL 93 is a total hoax. I covered that in several threads by showing that the nice old lady and her sister living near the crossroads saw the plane cross over their house, at tree top level. That height at that spot does not fit at ALL the flight data you see as the holy grail.
Her neighbor at the other side of that crossroads also saw the plane at that height. I know you have read all the posts from Domenick DiMaggio who has visited personally all these highly interesting UAL 93 eyewitnesses, so I may suppose you know what I am talking about.
Flight 93 is officially down at 10:06 but we have radar-return and seismic proof that it went down at 10:08. That's 2 MINUTES difference! Seismographs are atomic clock secured.
Domenick somewhere offered an audio recording of two flight controllers who told each other where the last radar return of Flight 93 was pinpointed, which was miles away from the crash site, it passed and was miles aside of Indian Lake, after it "officially" went down at 10:06.



In New York.... the second plane performed quite an interesting spiral down hit at the South Tower.

That's a new one! Don't recall any "spiral" involving UAL 175!!

Flight 93 could also have been taken over in the few minutes which are left out of the cockpit recordings.

More unsubstantiated speculation? Show these "missing" few minutes. Where is the 'gap'?


Gap answered above. You can only hear wind noise in those last seconds.
Spiral bad English. Me no American. Me simple Euro.

You have seen the one and only CBS? video of the second attack on the South Tower, where the plane dives like a circling hawk to the South Tower.
So, let's call it a half circle. Probably the reason it did not hit in the center.
The first plane came straight on to the North Tower in the last mile on video.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Its the title of the story from the source as yourself and the moron who starred your reply obviously missed.


Dude, give it up. It wasn't the author of that story who gave this thread that title. It was YOU, as in YOU PERSONALLY. Imagine a picture of someone pointing a finger directly at you. That's who gave the name, "whistleblower reveals" to this thread, and the reason is obvious- you wanted to get the readers to believe this article is about a whistleblower revealing some inside secret. The guy isn't even a whistleblower- he's just some guy speculating. He has nothing to do with the events of 9/11 whatsoever.

I'm not going to waste any more time bickering over this. There are people who can be caught with their hands in the cookie jar with cookie crumbs all over their face and they'll still deny they were stealing the cookies, and arguing with such people is pointless. The fact of the matter is, the con artists behind these damned fool conspiracy web sites have been caught red handed time ater time after time at playing these, "well, doesn't that sound suspicious (wink wink)" innuendo games, and this thread is just one exammple of a whole ocean of examples thereof. The reason they do this is obvious- they have zero, and I mean ZERO, tangible evidence of any real conspiracy so they have to manufacture their own evidence and manipulate everything into sounding more suspicious than it really is to get people to believe in them.

...and just WHY are you calling the guy who game my post a star a, "moron". Are you genuinely questioning his intelligence or are you simply calling him bad names because he enjoyed my post? That's hardly the behavior I would expect from someone claiming to simply be, "interested in learning the truth behind the events of 9/11".



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join